With all the myriad of God related questions why not have a definitive account of what God is? So tell me what God is.
Oh, but please note the following 3 rules:
He already told you what He is–He said, “I Am.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm
It is not what he does.
It is not an anthropomorphic quality.
It is not made-up.
He just–Is.
I don’t even like to use the word God because it is so limiting, restricting conception to childhood conditioning. Should I ever approach that which is God, perhaps I would sense energetic love without center or form.
Although I like the concept you posted Duck Duck, I have to take issue with your first statement:
That wording is not only inherently sexist, but also adds an anthropomorphic quality that the OP was trying to avoid.
Other than that, I agree that God IS.
Hey, you don’t happen to the the Iconoclast from the Internet Infidels’ message boards, do ya?
BlackKnight, no. But I’ll check out their forum.
“God is?”
What does that mean? Forgive my ignorance.
God is everything? God is in everything?
If God is everything, we already have a word for that - universe. If God is in everything, then he/she/it obviously exists to some degree as a unique entity - so what is this entity?
Not trying to be difficult, but I don’t see any sense in the statement “God is.”
God is the unknowable.
And that which is true whether we “know” it or not.
God is the reality that we cannot really perceive.
But we try. And in trying, “know” God.
This is what is meant by “God is.”
IMHO
Either that or dog spelled backwards.
God is the unknowable.
And that which is true whether we “know” it or not.
God is the reality that we cannot really perceive.
But we try. And in trying, “know” God.
This is what is meant by “God is.”
IMHO
Either that or dog spelled backwards.
God is the unknowable.
And that which is true whether we “know” it or not.
God is the reality that we cannot really perceive.
But we try. And in trying, “know” God.
This is what is meant by “God is.”
IMHO
Either that or dog spelled backwards.
?
Naturally, I suppose I should also mention this:
Well, that certainly cleared it up…
So now I have “God is” and “I am” as explanations - nevermind that for those sentences to make sense, one must understand what comes after “is” and “am” even if it isn’t clearly stated. I suppose I’m asking for what comes after.
Whatever you add will take away. He is the I AM. But if you must have a predicate nominative, slowly add each of these, blend them together, and then let them quietly disappear.
Existence.
Reality.
Eternity.
Perhaps it’s my wee atheist brain, but I still don’t think you’ve said anything substantive or cleared up the concept of god for anyone other than yourself.
For instance - in conceiving of this deity, how does one “slowly” add nouns together? I can see blending the concepts, much like I could imagine a chair and a big yellow dog being merged, but I’m afraid I’m still no closer to a conception of anything other than the universe itself when I merge existence, reality, and eternity. Also, how do these nouns then quietly disappear? Is your faith built solely on obfuscation?
Hopefully (that’s for Ogre), someone else can attempt to clarify.
Wow, another GD/GQ thread questioning belief in God. Is it noon already?
GOD is the conscious force that created the universe.
Any talk of omniscience or omnipotence sort of goes without saying, and in any event the true extent of such traits could not be understood by mortal, limited beings.
Stuff like “God is,” “God is in everything” etc. are attempts to explain something that cannot be fully comprehended by human beings and for which our language in inadequate to describe. God, having created the universe, does not exist in the universe by the same rules that we live in and understand. God isn’t matter or energy, and does not exist on a set number of dimensions, so talk of where God “is” is sort of nonsensical. God isn’t a person, or an animal, or anything which has definable boundaries, motivations, and limits. So God’s answer in Exodus, “I am,” is in a funny sort of way a good explanation, because most anything else you could say would be incorrectly limiting.
Even my initial line, “God is the conscious force that created the unoverse,” is sort of limited. “Conscious” is a state that animals have, but God is not an animal. “Force” is a physical term, but God isn’t physical. I think the sentence touches on what God is, but it’s still just an approximation.
I always liked this. Not that I’m necessarily an abject believer, but it’s my fond hope.
This is It
and I am It
and You are It
and so is That
and He is It
and She is It
and It is It
and That is That
God, IMHO, isn’t
God is a contradiction
God wasn’t there before, God isn’t here now, and God isn’t anywhere after
You’re a human, you’ve got some time on your hands, so you decid eto realize you’re going to die or you juts can’t figure something out
voila!
God is your answer
of course after you figure some stuff out, you’ve got to change your God, until finally you realize there is no God
so now you’ll all it love b/c love makes you all goooey inside
God isn’t
it isn’t this and it isn’t that, b/c we’ve given those things names
So God isn’t
it isn’t anything anyone can see or even imagine (aside from love, but why isn’t love just love?)
If you can’t conceive of it, it isn’t
and anything you can conceive is restricted to what is
so God isn’t
I don’t think it’s your “atheist brain”. Gaudere is an atheist, and she is enormously competent in comprehending the many ontological definitions of God, including, no doubt, the one offered here.
It’s an exercise in disciplined abstract thinking. Granted, it’s not for everyone.
Oh, be nice. You asked for a prediate nominative. I told you it would take away.